Well, but I’m not sure MIRI can be said to have “made a good case” that its own work is well-connected to astronomical benefits, either.
False modesty. The ‘good case’ already made for FAI being (optimally) related to astronomical benefits and the ‘good case’ already made for malaria reduction being (optimally) related to astronomical benefits are not of the same order of magnitude of already madeness.
I’m not sure “false modesty” applies, at least given my views about the degree to which the FAI case has been made.
For my own idea of “good case made,” anyway, I’d say the “malaria nets near-optimally connected to astronomical benefits” case is close to 0% of the way to “good case made,” and the “FAI research near-optimally connected to astronomical benefits” case is more like 10% of the way to “good case made.”
I don’t think that MIRI has made a case for the particular FAI research that it’s doing having non-negligible relevance to AI safety. See my “Chinese Economy” comments here.
False modesty. The ‘good case’ already made for FAI being (optimally) related to astronomical benefits and the ‘good case’ already made for malaria reduction being (optimally) related to astronomical benefits are not of the same order of magnitude of already madeness.
I’m not sure “false modesty” applies, at least given my views about the degree to which the FAI case has been made.
For my own idea of “good case made,” anyway, I’d say the “malaria nets near-optimally connected to astronomical benefits” case is close to 0% of the way to “good case made,” and the “FAI research near-optimally connected to astronomical benefits” case is more like 10% of the way to “good case made.”
I don’t think that MIRI has made a case for the particular FAI research that it’s doing having non-negligible relevance to AI safety. See my “Chinese Economy” comments here.
Ah, I’d heard a rumor you’d updated away from that, guess that was mistaken. I’ve replied to that comment.
Thanks